276 Siochi v Gozon
G.R. No. 169900 and 169977
DATE: March 18, 2010
Topic: Disposition and Encumbrance
GR No. 169900
Petitioner: Mario Siochi
Respondents: Alfredo Gozon, Winifred Gozon, Gil Tabije, Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc and
Elvira Gozon
GR 169977
Petitioner: Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc
Respondents: Mario Siochi, Elvira Gozon, Alfredo Gozon, and Winifred Gozon
Ponente: Carpio, J.
DOCTRINE:
The absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including the
portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if
the other spouse actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other
spouse’s written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity.
FACTS:
The disputed property is registered in the name of Alfredo, married to Elvira.
Elvira filed a petition for legal separation against Alfredo. She also filed a notice of lis
pendens, which was annotated on the title of the property.
While the legal separation case was still pending, Alfredo and Siochi entered into an
Agreement to Buy and Sell (Agreement) involving the property without the consent of Elvira.
After paying the ₱5 million earnest money as partial payment of the purchase price, Mario
took possession of the property. The Agreement was annotated on the property’s title.
A judgment was rendered decreeing the legal separation between Elvira and Alfredo. Their
conjugal partnership of gains was declared dissolved and liquidated. The RTC also ruled that
the disputed property is part of the conjugal property. Being the offending spouse, Alfredo is
deprived of his share in the net profits and the same is awarded to their child Winifred R.
Gozon whose custody is awarded to petitioner.
Alfredo executed a Deed of Donation over the property in favor of their daughter, Winifred.
By virtue of a Special Power of Attorney executed in his favor by Winifred, he then sold the
property to Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc. (IDRI). A new TCT was issued in the name of IDRI.
Mario then filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages, Annulment of Donation
and Sale, with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order. Mario alleges that the Agreement should be treated as a continuing offer,
which may be perfected by the acceptance of the other spouse before the offer is withdrawn.
Since Elvira’s conduct signified her acquiescence to the sale, Mario prays for the Court to
direct Alfredo and Elvira to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property upon his
payment of ₱9 million to Elvira.
ISSUE: Whether Alfredo can dispose the conjugal property without the consent of his wife,
Elvira
RULING:
No. Article 124 of the Family Code provides:
Art 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong
to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband’s decision shall prevail, subject
to the recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within
five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in
the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which
must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the
absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However,
the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse
and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the
other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both
offerors.
In this case, Alfredo was the sole administrator of the property because Elvira, with whom
Alfredo was separated in fact, was unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal
property. However, as sole administrator of the property, Alfredo still cannot sell the
property without the written consent of Elvira or the authority of the court. Without such
consent or authority, the sale is void. The absence of the consent of one of the spouse
renders the entire sale void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the
spouse who contracted the sale. Even if the other spouse actively participated in negotiating
for the sale of the property, that other spouse’s written consent to the sale is still required by
law for its validity. The Agreement entered into by Alfredo and Mario was without the written
consent of Elvira. Thus, the Agreement is entirely void. As regards Mario’s contention that
the Agreement is a continuing offer which may be perfected by Elvira’s acceptance before
the offer is withdrawn, the fact that the property was subsequently donated by Alfredo to
Winifred and then sold to IDRI clearly indicates that the offer was already withdrawn.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petitions. We AFFIRM the 7 July 2005 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74447 with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) We DELETE the portions regarding the forfeiture of Alfredo Gozon’s one-half undivided
share in favor of Winifred Gozon and the grant of option to Winifred Gozon whether or not
to dispose of her undivided share in the property; and
(2) We ORDER Alfredo Gozon and Winifred Gozon to pay Inter-Dimensional Realty, Inc. jointly
and severally the Eighteen Million Pesos (₱18,000,000) which was the amount paid by Inter-
Dimensional Realty, Inc. for the property, with legal interest computed from the finality of
this Decision.